Criminal responsibility for propaganda inUkraine: a view through the prism of the proportionality principle

Abstract

It is analyzed the key controversial issues related to the criminalization of propaganda. It is critically comprehended corpus delicti in the current Criminal Code of Ukraine, in which a criminal-legal prohibition of propaganda is established. The problematic aspects of the interpretation of the concept of propaganda and the current criminal and legal regulation have been determined.The notion of "propaganda" does not have a unanimous understanding nor in the Criminal Code of Ukraine, nor within the doctrine of criminal law. The common in most definitions of the abovementioned notion is the emphasis on the relationship between the concept of propaganda and targeted communication in order to achieve some aim. Purpose in propaganda means that is always intentional. However, there is a difference in the assessment of the impact that propaganda may have: it may be either positive or negative. Initially, the notion of propaganda had no negative connotation. It was firstly mentioned in the General Congregation for Propaganda in 1622, in which it was used to emphasize the need to spread the Christian faith.To a large extent, in the twentieth century, along with the development of media, in addition to the usual media (newspapers, brochures, posters) new ones appeared (cinema, radio, television). It became a crucial point in developing new forms of using propaganda in politics to unprecedented proportions. Propaganda began to be used as a tool for shaping the expected public opinion, beliefs, attitudes, which became the key to the legitimacy of certain political decisions, in particular during the First and Second World Wars, later during the so-called Cold War.After the Nuremberg tribunal in 1945-1946, it became clear to lawyers that the effects of propaganda, especially Nazi propaganda, could be devastating for democratic states and human rights. Therefore, the criminal codes of different countries banned certain forms of propaganda. However, this prohibition was not absolute and was related only to those forms of propaganda that defined the legislation as socially dangerous or harmful.